Opinion

CARL M. CANNON: Philly, City of Sisterly Love

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s quest in Philadelphia figures to be less arduous than the wild obstacle course Donald J. Trump negotiated in Cleveland.

Although Trump regained his footing with Republican delegates with a fiery and well-received 74-minute acceptance speech on the last night of the GOP convention, the Democrats are not banking on any last-minute rhetorical flourishes to launch their 2016 presidential nominee into the general election season on a high note.

They are planning a week-long coronation.

The contrast between Trump and Clinton begins with the two nominees’ respective standing in their own political parties. The Donald has never been part of the conservative movement and didn’t become an actual Republican until five years ago. He remains highly suspect among GOP party regulars, in part because over the years he donated large sums of campaign money to Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton.

By contrast, Hillary hasn’t cavorted with Republicans since her days as a high school “Goldwater girl.” She’s been a liberal Democrat for 50 years. Mrs. Clinton has numerous other advantages in trying to pull off a Philly love-fest, starting with a comparison of each convention’s delegates.

Although Clinton faced a spirited and unexpectedly damaging challenge from Bernie Sanders, convention managers in Philadelphia have no equivalent to the #NeverTrump movement that made its stand in Cleveland. This is true even though Sanders earned a higher percentage of committed delegates than all of Trump’s opponents combined.

The Republicans’ troubles began on the first day of their convention when anti-Trump rebels tried to alter party rules so delegates could ignore the primary results in their home states and vote their preference. It failed, but it set a tone of dissension that Trump wasn’t able to quell until he spoke on the last night of the convention.

Riding the same populist wave – albeit on a different beach – that propelled Trump to the nomination, Sanders earned 1,846 pledged delegates in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, compared to 2,205 to Clinton. This is far closer than any Republican came to Trump, who won nearly three times the number of delegates as the second-place finisher. Yet it was that also-ran, freshman Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who made a mess of Wednesday’s Cleveland program by pointedly refusing to endorse Trump.

Sanders, by contrast, has already endorsed Clinton – and will do so again in a prime-time speech on the convention’s opening night, the theme of which is “United Together.” It’s true that thousands of arch-liberal activists who formed the backbone of “Bernie-mentum” are expected to descend on Philly this week. Most of them will be in the streets, not in the convention hall, and their seriousness as a threat to Clinton can aptly be summed up by the planned “Fart-In” announced for Philly.

Flatulence aside, many Democrats still harbor misgivings about Clinton’s shortcomings as a campaigner and lingering concerns about the Clintons’ myriad ethics scandals. But most party leaders have made their peace with the inexorable march of the Clinton machine. Feminists, in particular, have long been “Ready for Hillary” – the slogan of one set of dedicated liberal women. As a sign of how firmly the Clinton operation has control over the apparatuses of the Democratic Party, “Ready for Hillary” has changed its name to the more prim and politically correct “Madam President.”

Famed 20th century humorist Will Rogers once quipped, “I am not a member of any organized party – I am a Democrat.” Rogers wouldn’t recognize the 21st century version. Party discipline is so ingrained today that Bernie Sanders bought into it, notwithstanding the fact that until he ran for president, Sanders assiduously refused to register as a Democrat, or call himself one.

Leaving little to chance, the Clinton campaign has also inserted two other liberal icons in their speakers’ lineup: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Gov. Jerry Brown.

Brown, in particular, is an instructive choice. When he ran for president against Bill Clinton in 1992, Brown accused him of “funneling money to his wife’s law firm for state business.” It was, Brown said, an obvious conflict of interest and a “scandal of major proportion.” Actually, it was nothing of the sort, although it must be said that Brown proved prescient on the subject of the Clinton family’s ethics. At the time, however, Bill Clinton won the exchange with Brown by responding, as any husband should.

“You ought to be ashamed of yourself for jumping on my wife,” he said. “You’re not worthy of being on the same platform as my wife.”

This week, the “same platform” is precisely where the Clintons want Jerry Brown, along with a host of former rivals and frenemies.

Will Rogers also was famous for saying, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” Eight years ago, Democratic Party women winced when Barack Obama dismissively proclaimed Hillary Clinton “likeable enough.” This week, Obama and his fellow Democrats plan to make it up to her.

Carl M. Cannon is executive editor of RealClearPolitics.com

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@pe.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

Join the conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful
conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments,
we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful,
threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent
or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law,
regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.